IMO, the kj-500 is not more dynamic and survivable than Y-20. The contrary is the case. Y-20 is faster and has a much longer endurance.
I dont know what that would be, unless we are talking UAV???
China's transport, tanker & heavy lift aircraft
- Thread starter Totoro
- Start date
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Given the degrees of work needed and the development of 919 and 929 they seem like closers to realistically being an option than a Jet powered Y9 ER.
More fuel is one aspect of endurance not the only one. You have to consider the human element. The crew have a set amount of time before they fail due to lack of sleep. If fuel if your concerns I would suggest taking the Y20 airframe and making a tanker instead.
Adding additional mission sets is perhaps the best most rational reason. The 4 engines should generate plenty of electricity for additional mission equipment. Okay perhaps.
That’s the next aspect. Right now No UAV do AWACS primarily due to power limitations. At best we could add datalinks to UAVs and have them relay day from strike fighters to CAP or recon birds to SEADs
The key advantage of the Y9 base for the KJ500 seems to be the STOL. The ability to park them on short less developed fields and have them pop up as needed. If the PLAAF could build enough of them they could cycle them in and out of action fast maintaining a sphere of control. Which would make Y9 based KJ500 more logical.
Russia is developing the A100 as its A50 are old. Kj500 are very new birds. They also have a preference to STOL on military bases which likely farther points to the IL76 based airframe.
the IL86 would like to know your location.
The Russians had an alternative they even used it for a Command and control aircraft the IL87 and IL80.
The IL96 is a farther development of that family.
Russia has used the IL96 for a number of special mission aircraft but the cost and field performance are key limitations. The Russian airbases are not built to the same standards as civilian airports. Farther complicating Then came the decline of the USSR.
The Russians didn’t have another option through the 1990s as though in the 1980s they experimented with other platforms, But the economy was in pieces. The factories that made essential products often ended up in other countries. They set to update what they had on hand build it in Russia leading to A50M and today are in the market for the next generation A100 but there rough field requirements dictate a military transport based airframe. The modern Optimum size for such would be a medium tactical transport but the prime suspect in that class would have been AN70, it’s canceled farther Antonov is Ukrainian and the IL 276 is still only on paper. So the Russians default back to the known Russian built active production IL76. But as technology as evolved they realized that they still had a ton of empty space and power so they added in more equipment to test. Still should be remembered that A100 is a flying lab demonstrator not production.
If you want faster build it on 919. If you want endurance build tankers and train extra operators. The range on Y20 is good for its class but not the end all be all. The one aspect I think where A Hypothetical KJ3000 based on a Y20 smokes Kj500 without equivocation is altitude. The Y9 is like all turboprop limited in ceiling.
Optimally a turbo prop will max at about 10,000m where a commercial airliner about 12,500m military models might push to 13,000m to 14,000m depending on build. Yet you can get that off a civilian airliner to.
C919 uses a lot of western components. I have doubts that china will be able to use this plane for military purposes.
Tankers and extra operators cost a lot of money. I´d rather have a plane that doesnt need a tanker, or, at least one that doesnt need often.
was the il86 a "reliable civilian airliner platform" ? The il76 was more common and had a certain future. Sticking to that was the safer bet and that's what they did. Maintenance wouldn't be a nightmare and parts availability was more or less guaranteed ( not for the electronics obv).
I don't see myself disagreeing with the rest of what you wrote.
It's quite odd that you keep insisting on the C919 as being a good platform. But the aircraft, in its present state, is just another product of Globalisation and therefore, considerable modifications and component swaps have to be done. All that pain when you have the KJ2000 and the Y20 at hand ?
Only in the avionics which you don't need to be Western. What you need is the airframe which is Chinese, the engines, which is Russian or Chinese in the future, the avionics and radar which can be Chinese.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
They converted Boeing 737s in the past to military missions. In this case they would have complete control of the product. As such It would be far easier. The main issue points could farther be augmented or supplemented as the program progresses.
frankly China needs Y20U more than Kj3000. They have a small fleet of bomber based tankers of limited utility. As to operators even if you build a gold plated Kj3000 out of Y20 you need operators for its systems and to maintain operations. Flight crew are your operators and if the flight crew have been at their stations beyond a set time they become liabilities. Most awacs have rest areas and a small kitchen along side it. That’s to keep the crew fresh for prolonged operations.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
we agree there, yet it should be remembered that by the time the E3 was being built 707 was declining as 767 emerged and the Twin jet revolution made quads rarer eliminating the support system. Still I think the Soviets made their choice more due to the conditions of their air bases.
First remembered Kj2000 production was curtailed by the Russians whom eventually stopped sales of the IL76 for conversion.
Where as the Comac though it has Western systems is manufactured in China. With Chinese makers and Chinese state owned enterprises it’s likely to be used as the primary basis of development for tailoring to those who don’t want western systems. Over time.
Next I point to it as the vast majority of modern AWACS being built are in the same general size class as the C919. The E7 being restarted for the UK potentially about to be adopted by the USAF is 737 C919’s direct competition from the US. The Bombardier Global Express 6000 is the basis of the SAAB Globaleye, that airframe is just under it closer to the ARJ21.
The CAEW is built on a Gulfstream 550 which is not that much smaller than the 737.
Where Y20 is a strategic transport which dwarfs those. Farther I wonder about the logic of plunging now into a huge AWACS when they have the tried and tested Kj500? I mean Okay they have Y20 but if Kj500 is filling the need right now couldn’t those Y20 airframes be better utilized to fill out the tanker fleets, sure up the air mobility logistics fleets? I mean it comes down to is there an actual need to introduce a “superior” AWACS in the PLAAF today (as in 2022-2025) at the cost of tankers or Transports or wouldn’t make more sense to keep a KJ-X in the development cycle for the latter half of the decade use the existing Kj500 fleet and production and focus on building up the Y20 for logistical missions. If you take that route then by the time you need KJ-X you have options.
Options because you could pull a Y20 off a line with a strong force of support and training for if it meant the needs or look at farther developed more indigenous C919.
The KJ-500 and a Y-20 based AEW&C would be similar in terms of survivability.
The Y-20 is marginally faster than a KJ-500 by virtue of being jet powered, and has a longer endurance sure, but both a Y-20 AEW&C and KJ-500 both have the common problems of contemporary AEW&C being:
- non-stealthy, large airframes
- relatively slow moving
- large, manned platforms carrying large radars where the loss of one single aircraft overall would result in a significant loss of your overall AEW&C capability in a given battlespace
Given all of the above, the question is whether development of a Y-20 AEW&C would offer anything that a KJ-500 cannot already do.
A combination of AEW UAVs, nodal UAVs, and manned combat aircraft of varying types with advanced sensors all networked together, supplemented by some small number of traditional manned AEW&C operating in the rear.
DIRCM or something like MSDM could certainly play a role in defending vulnerable force multipliers or transport aircraft, but doesn't change the underlying issue of how traditional AEW&C are configured.
We don't know if the KJ500 is fit to meet the dynamically evolving demands of PLA. Till 2019, a war with India was only a very remote possibility. We don't know if the aircraft has some sort of limitations regarding electronics, survivability or range.
China not only has to focus on the SCS but also India. Your points regarding runway tolerances was good in that, China is expanding airfields in Tibet and the Ladakh/ Kashmir conflict would see Aircrafts trying to takeoff from poor runways and at altitude. Do we know if the KJ500 is performing remarkably in that theatre ? Anyway, both KJ500 and Y20 had made appearances in Tibet. Chinese newspapers have run articles on Y20 becoming a template for more variants.